President Bush will meet with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
at the White House on December 7. This is the latest episode in an
extraordinary partnership between the two world leaders, which will
end in 2007 with Blair's departure from Downing Street. The
alliance is coming under increasing fire in the United Kingdom,
where opinion polls indicate growing public skepticism over the
value of the special relationship. The summit also takes place just
days after highly controversial comments by State Department
official Kendall Myers, who described the special relationship as
"one-sided" and a "myth."[1]

This week's White House meeting, the 10th major U.S. summit
between the two leaders since 9/11, will focus heavily on the newly
released findings of the Iraq Study Group, as well as the war in
Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process, the Iranian nuclear
crisis, and the genocide in Sudan. It will also be a forum for
frank discussion over the future of Iraq, and President Bush should
not be wary of opposing Blair's call for negotiations with Iran and
Syria. It will also be an important opportunity to reiterate the
strength and value of the Anglo-American special relationship, the
driving force of the global war on terror, and the most powerful
alliance in the world in the defense of freedom.

Key Recommendations for the Bush-Blair
Summit

Fight to Win in Iraq

The U.S. and U.K. must remain united in their determination to
win the war in Iraq, despite inevitable disagreements over
strategy. An early withdrawal of British or American troops would
have catastrophic implications for the future of Iraq and be seen
by many Iraqis as a betrayal of trust. By liberating Iraq and
removing one of the most brutal regimes of modern times, Britain
and the United States made a powerful commitment to the future of
the Iraqi people that must be honored. There should be no major
pullout of Allied forces from the country until key military
objectives have been met and Iraq is stable and secure.

The U.S. and the U.K. share a fundamental national interest in
staying in Iraq and defeating the insurgency. The Middle East would
view an early withdrawal as a humiliating defeat for the West and
an emphatic victory for those who represent al-Qaeda in Iraq. A
pullout would be an unparalleled propaganda success for a barbaric
terror organization that has murdered thousands of Iraqi men,
women, and children.

Say No to Engagement with Iran

Tony Blair's call for U.S. and British engagement with Tehran to
find a solution to the violence in Iraq is naïve and risky,
and the Bush Administration should reject it. The British
government's decision to engage Iran and Syria, which the Iraq
Study Group has echoed, is a serious strategic error that is likely
to exacerbate the situation in Iraq rather than improve it. It
risks dividing the Anglo-American alliance and strengthening the
hands of rogue regimes that have a vested interest in weakening the
partnership between Washington and London on the world stage.

Iran remains the world's biggest state sponsor of international
terrorism and the greatest threat to world peace, along with North
Korea. The Iranian regime is reportedly building close ties with
al-Qaeda's leadership and training senior al-Qaeda operatives in
Tehran in an effort to build a strategic terror alliance against
the West.[2]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is pressing forward with
plans for a nuclear weapons program and continues to maintain that
Israel should be "wiped off the map." Iran is also a huge part of
the problem in Iraq, with Iranian-backed Shia militias actively
engaged in a war against British forces in the south of the
country. Blair's strategy of reaching out to Iran follows the
European Union's fruitless policy of "constructive engagement" with
Iran over its nuclear ambitions and is similarly likely to embolden
rather than weaken Iran as a destructive force on the world
stage.

Stand up to Iranian Threats

Washington and London should send a strong message to Tehran
that the free world will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran or
threats against Israel. The United States and United Kingdom should
propose the admission of Israel into NATO as a full and equal
member.[3]
Israeli accession to NATO would explicitly extend the Western
alliance's nuclear deterrent to cover Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Israel meets NATO qualifications: It is a democracy, has a
free-market economy, and is able to contribute to the common
defense. Unlike some new NATO members, Israel would be a major net
addition to the alliance, with lift and logistics ability, a
superlative officer corps, and a first-rate military capable of all
aspects of war-fighting. Israel spends nearly 10 percent of its GDP
on defense and has active armed forces of 167,000 men and women,
with 358,000 in reserve. It possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads
and a well-equipped air force and navy.[4] Israel's intelligence
capabilities have been a vital asset in prosecuting the war on
terrorism. Like the U.S. and Great Britain, Israel is a genuine
warrior nation. Its accession to NATO could only enhance the
alliance's capabilities.

As Iran moves closer toward its goal of producing a nuclear
weapon and its threats against Israel and the West grow louder, the
United States and the United Kingdom must build a powerful
international alliance to confront and, if necessary, forcibly
disarm the regime in Tehran.

Urge European NATO Partners To Help in
Afghanistan

The U.S. and the U.K. must urge major European NATO partners to
send combat troops to southern Afghanistan to help fight the
Taliban. They should call for NATO to abolish "caveats" for member
countries in theaters of war and call for all NATO member states to
abide by the baseline rules in NATO operations or relinquish their
memberships. It is unacceptable that British, American, and
Canadian troops are laying down their lives in counterterrorism
operations while many fellow NATO member states participating under
the same operational command refuse to help. NATO must return to
its original "all for one, one for all" spirit or it will perish as
an institution.

Take Action to End the Genocide in
Darfur

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair should call for an
immediate meeting of key allies in Washington or London to discuss
the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. Up to 400,000 people have
been killed by Sudanese-backed Janjaweed militias in barbaric acts
of ethnic cleansing. The United States and the United Kingdom
should support the establishment of a NATO-enforced no-fly zone
over Darfur, based on a coalition-of-the-willing strategy, in
support of African Union peacekeepers. The West cannot rely upon an
ineffective and morally ambivalent United Nations to take action
over the biggest man-made humanitarian tragedy of the 21st century
where tens of thousands of refugees face sustained attacks from
Islamic militants. The U.N.'s track record in the face of genocide,
from the killing fields of Rwanda to the "safe haven" of
Srebrenica, has been one of appalling weakness and callous
indifference in the face of human suffering.

The World Needs Anglo-American
Leadership

The Anglo-American special relationship today faces some of the
greatest challenges in its 60-year history, including rising public
and political opposition in the U.K. Worryingly, anti-American
views are now as widespread, or perhaps even more prevalent, in the
U.K. than in some continental European countries with a far deeper
tradition of public skepticism toward the U.S. In a recent
Financial Times/Harris poll in five of the EU's largest
member states[5], a staggering 36 percent of Britons
surveyed described the United States as "the greatest threat to
global security." (Just 19 percent of British respondents cited
Iran as the world's greatest threat.)

If the British public continues to move further away from the
United States and slide closer to the European Union on major
international issues, the long-term future of the special
relationship will be placed in jeopardy. In many ways, Britain is
at a turning point in its history: it is faced with a choice
between further political, legal, military, and economic
integration with the EU or a deepening of its alliance with the
United States and other English-speaking allies such as Australia.
As Tony Blair has discovered with the Iraq war, the two competing
visions are largely incompatible.

From the U.S. point of view, it would be a geo-strategic
disaster if Britain leaned toward Brussels rather than Washington.
Under a fully developed EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
(CFSP), America's closest ally would be unable to operate an
inde­pendent foreign policy and stand alongside the United
States where and when it chose to do so. The consequences for the
United States would be hugely damaging.

For Britain, there is much to lose from a weakening of the
Anglo-American alliance: the further loss of national sovereignty,
the diminution of British global power and influence, the loosening
of defence and intelligence ties, and a weakening of the close-knit
financial, trade, and investment relationship.

For both U.S. and U.K. policymakers and politicians, the defense
of the Anglo-American special relationship should be a top
priority. On the U.S. side, the Bush Administration should greatly
step up public diplomacy in the U.K. Little has been done so far to
project and communicate America's foreign policy message to British
and European audiences effectively. In London, the Blair government
must do more to explain how the alliance with America enhances
Britain's national security and why the special relationship brings
Britain significant benefits. At the same time, the British
government should not undermine the alliance with America by
supporting further political or defense integration in Europe.

This week's Washington summit should serve as a potent reminder
of the enduring strength and value of the special relationship. It
is significant that it is the British Prime Minister and not the
German Chancellor, the French President, or the U.N. Secretary
General, whom the U.S. President looks to for partnership in
addressing the big international security matters of the day. In
times of international crisis, the U.S. and the U.K. stand
together, and the world is a safer and better place for it.

Nile
Gardiner, Ph.D., is the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in,
and Director of, the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a
division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for
International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.